It’s hard to say what will happen as both McCain and Guiliani both have their own problems. But the media is definitely focusing in on Romney with the critical eye. However the media need to change its story every few months. (Witness the shift from love fest to critical eye on Obama)

Thou shalt not run against thyself.

Romney has been inflicting a lot of damage on himself by apologizing for his record. Now, his advisors are telling him to bash France and Massachusetts. That will only make him appear more desperate.

Instead, Romney should run on his record and create the image of a competent conservative who can promote conservative causes and common sense solutions under the most difficult conditions.

The man has a lot to show in terms of accomplishments. Even conservatives will understand that when Romney explains to them how his achievements are relevant to them and their families.

#25: You may have misread me. I was equally opposed to the content of the law, and the sense of having some nasty bedfellows was palpable. But I also feel, before we start on any of that, that propositions (regardless of their original intent) have become a way to pass laws that represent the will of the majority of active voters but infringe on or limit the rights of a minority — the very circumstance the legislative process is meant to curb. Even if I agreed with the content, I would never actively politicize for a proposition which clearly had this intent.

A clue for Ronan: the bishop who defended me plays a mission president in two LDS films.

Ronan, if I’m not a Mitt guy (I’m ACLU), nor a Reid guy (I’m pro-choice and anti-state), am I exempt from the Romney Rule?

Norbert,
Come on man, name names! Or at least give us a clue.

So generally, the church said, this is what we are doing, and let’s go. But if you don’t really want to, it’s OK. Hmm.

A question on our usage of terms…

When the term “The Church” is used in such context is it the official position or simply the members within a ward or stake etc who express thier opinion as the church?

“Officially” the church is neutral as I understand it. Yet overwhelmingly these opinions of the “majority” are paraded as the church’s opinion. Does there need to be a clearer distinction in the “Rank and file” about this?

Why do so many simply side with a party and ignore the issue at hand? Voting only left or right?

Is it easier to not have to think about it and simply “vote the line” so to speak?

I can identify with that. For example, I don’t have strong feelings one way or another on laws affecting gay rights; I can see both sides of certain specific issues. But I definitely wouldn’t want to be associated with many of those opposed to gay rights. That may be another with saying that I’m entirely comfortable with the moral position that Elder Oaks took in a recent “interview” posted on the church’s web site. But I don’t think he advocated, for example, that we should treat gays with anything less than full respect, and many of those involved in the “pro-family” movement do not behave as if they love their gay neighbors. I don’t want to have anything to do with that, nor do I want to be identified as one hating days, so I hesitate to publicly advocate the same political positions many of them have advocated.

The fact is that we can have any number of reasons for taking a political stand. Even if I were to enthusiastically agree with the official counsel of supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that doesn’t mean I’d have to support any particular amendment that comes along. Some are reasonable, while others are unconscionable, and I certainly have the agency to use my own judgment to determine which is which.

Rank-and-file members are entitled, like Reid, to make their own judgments on political matters. That goes without saying, perhaps. But they are also free to make those judgments without being labeled as unfaithful apostates if they arrive at a different opinion than the Brethren. Whacking them with a Follow the Prophet Guilt Stick only proves Linker correct. That would be bad for Romney.

I was in California in 2000 when proposition 22 was on the ballot, the church really kicked in with a full-scale political movement, coordinated by bishops (I think). It was stated very explicitly that members could be approached to assist, but there should be no coersion and any member should be free to decline to be involved without any repercussions or consequences. I was on a ward council at the time and politely refused to be involved, and generally feeling like I did not need to defend that position. (It was as much in opposition to the whole proposition process, the mechanism of demagogues, as in opposition to the content of the law.) My motivation and worthiness was openly questioned (by a person who has gone on to become a famous Mormon and whose rigidity would surprise most of you), and the bishop defended my decision and that was the end of that. I’m sure it was a more uncomfortable experience for others in less liberal wards than ours.

So generally, the church said, this is what we are doing, and let’s go. But if you don’t really want to, it’s OK. Hmm.